Griffin v. Weber

In Griffin v. Weber,[1]the supreme court held that the burden of proof to reform a quitclaim deed into a security agreement is met when both parties to the transaction testify that they understood the deed’s purpose was to provide security for the transaction.[2] In 2009, Weber agreed to cosign a refinanced mortgage that Griffin wanted to take out on her property.[3] Before taking out the mortgage, Griffin executed a quitclaim deed to transfer ownership of her property from only herself to herself and Weber.[4] In 2010, Griffin wanted to refinance again, this time with her fiancé as cosigner.[5] The bank asked that Weber relinquish his interest in the property first, this dispute arose and Griffin asked the court to reform the 2009 deed into a security instrument.[6] At trial, Griffin testified that a purpose of the transaction was to provide security to Weber in case she defaulted on the mortgage.[7] Furthermore, Weber testified that the purpose of the quitclaim deed was to secure his interest in the loan in case something happened to Weber.[8] The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the parties’ testimonies provided the clear and convincing evidence necessary to show that a security was intended.[9] Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that the burden of proof to reform a quitclaim deed into a security agreement is met when both parties to the transaction testify that they understood the deed’s purpose was to provide security for the transaction.[10]

Griffin v. Weber

In Griffin v. Weber,[1]the supreme court held that the burden of proof to reform a quitclaim deed into a security agreement is met when both parties to the transaction testify that they understood the deed’s purpose was to provide security for the transaction.[2] In 2009, Weber agreed to cosign a refinanced mortgage that Griffin wanted to take out on her property.[3] Before taking out the mortgage, Griffin executed a quitclaim deed to transfer ownership of her property from only herself to herself and Weber.[4] In 2010, Griffin wanted to refinance again, this time with her fiancé as cosigner.[5] The bank asked that Weber relinquish his interest in the property first, this dispute arose and Griffin asked the court to reform the 2009 deed into a security instrument.[6] At trial, Griffin testified that a purpose of the transaction was to provide security to Weber in case she defaulted on the mortgage.[7] Furthermore, Weber testified that the purpose of the quitclaim deed was to secure his interest in the loan in case something happened to Weber.[8] The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the parties’ testimonies provided the clear and convincing evidence necessary to show that a security was intended.[9] Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that the burden of proof to reform a quitclaim deed into a security agreement is met when both parties to the transaction testify that they understood the deed’s purpose was to provide security for the transaction.[10]